Agenda and minutes

The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Apologies were received from Councillors Harris and White (with no substitutes appointed).

To confirm and sign as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday, 28 September 2023.

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Wiggins and unanimously:-

RESOLVED that the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee, held on Thursday 28 September 2023, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests of Non-Registerable Interests, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor Everett declared for the public record in relation to reports A.1 – 23-00864-FUL – Jubilee Ground, Naze Park Road, Walton-on-the-Naze and A.3 – 22-01333-FUL – Land west of Turpins Farm, Walton Road, Kirby-le-Soken that he was a Member of the Frinton and Walton Town Council but that he had not taken part in any debates on those applications at Town Council meetings. He therefore stated that he was not predetermined and will remain in the meeting whilst those applications were determined.

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the Tendring District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

There were no such Questions on Notice submitted by Councillors on this occasion.

Extension to temporary period relocation for 8 beach huts to remain on Jubilee Ground (with remaining 9 beach huts to be replaced within empty beach hut plots in various locations).

The Committee had the application before it as Tendring District Council was the applicant.

Members heard that the proposal involved the further temporary siting of eight beach huts following the initial temporary permission for a total of 17 beach huts in June 2023, which had expired in August 2023. Of those 17 beach huts, 9 had since been relocated, but a further temporary permission was sought in order to allow time for the completion of cliff stabilisation work. The remaining eight beach huts were to be moved back to their original location upon completion of that work.

Officers informed Members that the proposal was not considered to result in significant harm to an area of land allocated as Safeguarded Open Space, and would not harm existing trees, highway safety or the amenities of any local residents.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any responses from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.

There had been no updates circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting about the application.

There were no public speakers for this application.  

During debate Councillor Everett reminded the meeting that he had declared for the public record that he was a Member of the Frinton and Walton Town Council but that he was not predetermined. 

It was moved by Councillor Alexander, seconded by Councillor Bray and:-

RESOLVED that:

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as stated at paragraph 8.2 of the report (A.1), or varied as is necessary to ensure the wording is enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the conditions as referenced is retained; and,

2)    the sending of any informative notes to the applicant as may be deemed necessary.

Proposed sub division of site to form building plot and erection of three bedroom detached bungalow including new vehicular access to serve new dwelling and the host property.

The Committee heard that the application was before Members as the proposal represented a departure from the Local Plan, proposing new residential development outside of the St Osyth Settlement Development Boundary (SDB) as defined within the adopted Tendring District Local Plan 2012 to 2033 and Beyond.

Members were told that the application related to the side garden of number 225 Point Clear Road, St Osyth. The site was located on the southern side of Point Clear Road, close to the junction with Dumont Avenue and was surrounded by residential development on all sides.

Officers informed Members that the site lay outside of the defined SDB of St Osyth and that there was no defined settlement for Point Clear within the adopted Local Plan. The application was therefore contrary to the spatial strategy set out within adopted Local Plan Section 1 Policy SP7 and Section 2 Policy SPL2. However, Local Plan Policy SPL 2 did not preclude residential development outside of the defined boundary, but rather required careful consideration of the scale of development in relation to the settlement hierarchy category, site-specific characteristics, and sustainability of the site.

The Committee was also informed that in that instance, the site-specific merits of the case and a recent appeal decision were of significant weight in the assessment of the application. Namely, the previous outline application for 1 no. dwelling (reference 21/02082/OUT) refused due to the lack of RAMS UU only, and the appeal decision at a nearby site (rear of 172 Point Clear Road appeal reference APP/P1560/W/22/3311836) which had been allowed on the basis that the site was within walking distance of amenities and public transport and the scale of development would be proportionate to the size of the settlement.

Members were assured that the Officers were satisfied that existing services and facilities within Point Clear would be capable of supporting the proposed development of 1 dwelling, and that those were accessible within safe walking distance of the site. The proposed single storey dwelling was of a scale and design that would appear as an infill plot, in keeping with the linear pattern and scale of residential development in the locality.

The Committee was finally told that, in line with the conclusions of the above-mentioned appeal, other than the high-level policy conflict regarding the location of the site outside the defined settlement development boundary, the development in the opinion of the Officers would not result in any material harm in terms of design, impact, residential amenities or highway safety, and was acceptable in all other regards.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any responses from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval subject to Unilateral Undertaking and Conditions.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (AL) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting with details on the rewording of Condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Proposed re-plan of part of site to provide 21 additional smaller units increasing total from 210 approved to 231 (as alternative to part of planning permission 16/00031/OUT and 20/00303/DETAIL).

The Chairman of the Committee (Councillor Maria Fowler) informed the meeting that Councillors Bray and Placey would not be able to take part in the consideration of Item 7 of the Agenda due to them not attending the site visit or the Committee meeting held in August 2023 when the application in question had first been heard. However, they both would be able to remain in the meeting, as they had not declared an Interest.

Councillor Bray recused himself from this application and retired to the public gallery.

Members were reminded that, at the submission stage this application had been for an additional 24 homes and that after consultation with Essex Place services a decision had been made to keep some of the properties as 4 Bedroom Homes as it was felt from a placemaking perspective those, mostly corner, buildings needed to have a greater presence on the street scene. When those plots had reverted to larger properties the Architects drawings had not updated the plot numbering which had continued to show numbering up to 234, the error also was not obvious in the accommodation schedule as it only included part of the site.

The Committee heard that as a result of the above, the total dwellings proposed on site was in fact 231 (3 less than the scheme presented to Members in August 2023). The difference in dwelling numbers therefore result in the following changes:

-        The description of the development changed to:

“Proposed re-plan of part of site to provide 21 additional smaller units increasing total from 210 approved to 231 (as alternative to part of planning permission 16/00031/OUT and 20/00307/DETAIL).”

-        the uplift in dwelling numbers as a result of the replan scheme is 21 (instead of 24)

-        the number of affordable units that would be secured as part of the re-plan scheme equates to a total of 6 dwellings (as opposed to 7 reported to Committee in August 2023). Given that 21 additional dwellings were proposed, a total of 6 affordable units would equate to a proportionate 30% affordable housing contribution and the proposal continued to be in accordance with Policy LP5 of the adopted Local Plan.

-        as a result of the downward revision of the overall dwelling numbers by 3, the proportionate Health and Education contributions would continue to be required to mitigate against the impact of the development. Both the NHS and ECC Education have both been approached for comments and confirmation of the amounts required however at the time of writing the update report the comments remained outstanding.

Members were informed that, in conclusion, the reason to return this application to Committee was a matter of correction in terms of consistency and updating of the information presented to Members previously. That essentially confirmed the reduction of numbers compared to the initial application made that was before Members previously, but given the description changes it was appropriate to seek an updated resolution to ensure no risk of challenge against the decision-making process.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.